Boeing: Profits 1st, Safety 2nd? (Part 3)

Message boards : Politics : Boeing: Profits 1st, Safety 2nd? (Part 3)
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 . . . 17 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 15762
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2078239 - Posted: 19 Jun 2021, 16:10:33 UTC - in response to Message 2078219.  
Last modified: 19 Jun 2021, 16:50:31 UTC

Really? The Boeing 737 MAX flight control system is too much of an unreliable unknown not to require repeated external testing to see if it still seems to work well enough?

WOW! You mean you shouldn't have to test a mechanical switch to see if it works? WOW!

I mean really, there is so little trust in that flight system?

My safety-critical training demands that safety critical systems are guaranteed to fail safely, and that all aspects of operation are proven safe.

My personal take on the Boeing way of design is that their flight systems 'hopefully work well enough' and we give the pilots an electrical switch to switch off the power if things go 'unexpected'.

Letting that sort of ad-hoc design go flying with hundreds of lives dependent upon a pilot instantly flipping a "do not die yet" switch AND still successfully flying the plane without that flight system functionality is the crazy big WOW-WHAT-THE-HELL!!!

For such a desperate last moment get-out-of-death system, safest is to never have that switch switched on!


You need this https://www.youtube.com/user/UGOT2CTHIS Dan will teach you about the number one cause.

Not my choice of channel. I prefer the level-headed reporting from such as blancolirio and AVweb.

They give a good reminder of the importance of allowing the pilots to simply fly the aircraft, rather than being left bewildered and overloaded in a cockpit of deadly confusion...


How many false alarms were triggered by a singular point of failure in the Boeing 737 that left two flight crews fatally bewildered?...

Has that been redesigned and fully safely fixed?...

Do we add a third Boeing 737 flight crew to that list for the latest 'everyone-dead' crash off Indonesia?


Fly safe folks!
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2078239 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 29065
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 2078249 - Posted: 19 Jun 2021, 20:05:22 UTC - in response to Message 2078239.  

For such a desperate last moment get-out-of-death system, safest is to never have that switch switched on!
So no fuses or circuit breakers. No fuel shutoff valves. Wonderful engineering.

BTW Juan Brown likes Dan Gryder. Dan just doesn't hold back on the number one cause, like most everyone else and the NTSB never ever says the number one cause.
ID: 2078249 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 15762
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2079338 - Posted: 7 Jul 2021, 2:16:53 UTC - in response to Message 2078249.  
Last modified: 7 Jul 2021, 2:21:28 UTC

For such a desperate last moment get-out-of-death system, safest is to never have that switch switched on!
So no fuses or circuit breakers. No fuel shutoff valves. Wonderful engineering.

There is a world of difference between systems that are positively working to maintain safe flight, as opposed to systems that are idle yet can unexpectedly catastrophically kill that flight...

There is supposed to be enforced the design doctrine that aircraft systems must fail safely or must fail to a benign state... Something that instead has to be actively turned off to avoid deadly catastrophe for normal flight is an inherently deadly design...

Your example there of a fuel shut-off is a very good safety feature that is only ever to be used either only whilst safely on the ground or only until AFTER some catastrophe has already happened...



BTW Juan Brown likes Dan Gryder. Dan just doesn't hold back on the number one cause, like most everyone else and the NTSB never ever says the number one cause.

Indeed, there is a world of difference in the expense of merely training a pilot to fly vs the extra time needed training a pilot to fly for other than normal conditions...


Myself, I was taught to drive by a police driving instructor. At the time I was annoyed that I was taken through extra lessons (and lesson fees) to learn aspects somewhat beyond what the driving test required. Ok, so that made for an easy driving test. The real payback has been in much reduced insurance costs due to that training paying off greatly for various 'events' out on the road in the real world.

Similarly, I learnt to fly fixed wing aircraft at an RAF airfield. That was quite an experience for the 'ways of the military' that again is initially hard but usefully good.


And then we have where that 'extra' initial cost good safe sense might be dangerously neglected for the sake of greedy short term profit and ignorance... Unless such 'additional' training is made a requirement...?


Fly safe folks!
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2079338 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 15762
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2079339 - Posted: 7 Jul 2021, 2:23:48 UTC
Last modified: 7 Jul 2021, 2:24:29 UTC

And is this where Boeing is trying to make their 777x into another 737 MAX?...


Boeing 777X In Trouble Insider Reveals: The FAA Says Aircraft Certification Is Still Years Away


To me, that sounds like a deadly Ouch!

Incredible. Deadly greedy. Ignorant.


Fly safe folks!
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2079339 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 29065
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 2079357 - Posted: 7 Jul 2021, 6:09:12 UTC - in response to Message 2079338.  

There is supposed to be enforced the design doctrine that aircraft systems must fail safely or must fail to a benign state... Something that instead has to be actively turned off to avoid deadly catastrophe for normal flight is an inherently deadly design...

Your example there of a fuel shut-off is a very good safety feature that is only ever to be used either only whilst safely on the ground or only until AFTER some catastrophe has already happened...

The auto-pilot is one system designed exactly the opposite of your safe idea. When it fails it will do so with whatever pitch, roll and yaw inputs it last had. You might be lucky and that be straight and level, or you might not be so lucky and it is pitch down adverse yaw, wing low. That is of course if it fails and happens to alert the pilot that it no longer is in control. All too often they only blink an idiot light which can take some too long time for a pilot to realize, especially with the pilot is head down briefing an approach plate. Is the idiot light even wired so if a circuit breaker trips the light comes on or is the power for the light through the now open circuit breaker?

Indeed, there is a world of difference in the expense of merely training a pilot to fly vs the extra time needed training a pilot to fly for other than normal conditions...

Hence why the training must include the very real possibility of run away trim inputs and making how to shut off electric trim inputs a memory checklist item. Frankly for any airplane with full motion simulator there should be at least one flight where they have to fly a severely mistrimmed aircraft to experience the control column forces needed to maintain control.

Aviate, Navigate, Communicate, Troubleshoot. That order. (There are a couple of exceptions to troubleshoot last, such as fire in the cockpit or explosive decompression, but they are of the type where you need to deal with the situation first because if you don't the rest won't matter.)
ID: 2079357 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
rob smith Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 20705
Credit: 416,307,556
RAC: 380
United Kingdom
Message 2079360 - Posted: 7 Jul 2021, 7:25:10 UTC

When it fails it will do so with whatever pitch, roll and yaw inputs it last had

This is not totally true.
One failure mode of an autopilot is that it "freezes" as described.
Others include pushing one control set (ailerons, elevator, rudder, throttles each being a control set) just out of the desired line. This is scary because the flight crew may not notice for some time.
Or it might push one set to a limit. Some are more immediately noticeable than others, and how noticeable may depend on external factors.
Or several may be pushed to limits.
Or one or may may be "oscillated" in an un-damped manner.
Or flaps/landing gear may be incorrectly deployed/retracted.
Or, or, or........

As far as I'm aware all of these have happened over the years, and across many types of aircraft. Which and how many can/have happen is influenced by the system design of both the aircraft and the autopilot systems in place.
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?
ID: 2079360 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 15762
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2079394 - Posted: 7 Jul 2021, 14:01:35 UTC
Last modified: 7 Jul 2021, 14:02:34 UTC

Which is suspiciously what looks to have happened to the latest all-fatal Boeing 737 (Classic or NG?) death-dive crash.

The throttle for one engine 'crept' backwards to give asymmetric thrust between the two engines. The autopilot flying the control surfaces held on against an ever increasing yaw until finally giving up and dumping an extreme attitude non-flying aircraft onto the startled pilots.


Really...? There are no prior warnings that the autopilot is having to work far too hard and is outside of safe (recoverable) margins?...


Fly safe folks!
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2079394 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 29065
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 2079403 - Posted: 7 Jul 2021, 16:55:40 UTC - in response to Message 2079394.  

Really...? There are no prior warnings that the autopilot is having to work far too hard and is outside of safe (recoverable) margins?...

Warning was there all the time. All they had to do was look at the throttle lever.

The problem is when the automation works so damn good all the time humans stop monitoring it. See Dan Gryder.
ID: 2079403 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 17341
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 2079967 - Posted: 14 Jul 2021, 4:16:00 UTC

Boeing slows 787 production to address forward pressure bulkhead manufacturing issue
Boeing is slowing 787 production in order to address a new manufacturing issue that the company says involves an issue with the jet’s forward pressure bulkhead.

The airframer has also slashed the number of Dreamliners it expects to deliver in 2021, now predicting it will hand over about half of the roughly 100 787s it holds in inventory.

Previously, Boeing told investors it would deliver the majority of those jets this year.

News of a new 787 manufacturing problem came to light on 12 July when the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said a “manufacturing quality issue near the nose” of some of Boeing’s undelivered 787s had been identified.
ID: 2079967 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 17341
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 2080146 - Posted: 16 Jul 2021, 4:32:42 UTC
Last modified: 16 Jul 2021, 4:33:28 UTC

Another problem for the 737.
FAA orders checks on 9,300 Boeing 737 planes for possible switch failures
WASHINGTON, July 15 (Reuters) - The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on Thursday issued a directive to operators of all Boeing Co (BA.N) 737 series airplanes to conduct inspections to address possible failures of cabin altitude pressure switches.
The directive requires operators to conduct repetitive tests of the switches and replace them if needed. The directive covers 2,502 U.S.-registered airplanes and 9,315 airplanes worldwide.
It was prompted after an operator reported in September that both pressure switches failed the on-wing functional test on three different 737 models.
The FAA said failure of the switches could result in the cabin altitude warning system not activating if the cabin altitude exceeds 10,000 feet (3,050 m), at which point oxygen levels could become dangerously low.
Boeing initially reviewed the issue, including the expected failure rate of the switches, and found it did not pose a safety issue.
Subsequent investigation and analysis led the FAA and Boeing to determine in May that "the failure rate of both switches is much higher than initially estimated, and therefore does pose a safety issue."
ID: 2080146 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 15762
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2080153 - Posted: 16 Jul 2021, 5:43:22 UTC - in response to Message 2080146.  

Thanks for that one!

...It was prompted after an operator reported in September that both pressure switches failed the on-wing functional test on three different 737 models.
The FAA said failure of the switches could result in the cabin altitude warning system not activating if the cabin altitude exceeds 10,000 feet (3,050 m), at which point oxygen levels could become dangerously low.
Boeing initially reviewed the issue, including the expected failure rate of the switches, and found it did not pose a safety issue.
Subsequent investigation and analysis led the FAA and Boeing to determine in May that "the failure rate of both switches is much higher than initially estimated, and therefore does pose a safety issue [of the pilots losing consciousness]."

So... Where have we seen this potentially deadly scenario before?

As I personally see the scenario:

    Boeing fluffs the design-and-test-and-QA-checks;
    Operator reports faults/concerns;
    Boeing denies any problem;
    FAA chases up long after the event to too late declare a real problem;
    Work-around minimum cost 'fix' agreed;
    Pilots and passengers fly on their prayers...




Fly safe folks!
Martin


See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2080153 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 29065
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 2080172 - Posted: 16 Jul 2021, 14:02:24 UTC - in response to Message 2080146.  

Another problem for the 737.
FAA orders checks on 9,300 Boeing 737 planes for possible switch failures
WASHINGTON, July 15 (Reuters) - The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on Thursday issued a directive to operators of all Boeing Co (BA.N) 737 series airplanes to conduct inspections to address possible failures of cabin altitude pressure switches.
The directive requires operators to conduct repetitive tests of the switches and replace them if needed. The directive covers 2,502 U.S.-registered airplanes and 9,315 airplanes worldwide.
It was prompted after an operator reported in September that both pressure switches failed the on-wing functional test on three different 737 models.
The FAA said failure of the switches could result in the cabin altitude warning system not activating if the cabin altitude exceeds 10,000 feet (3,050 m), at which point oxygen levels could become dangerously low.
Boeing initially reviewed the issue, including the expected failure rate of the switches, and found it did not pose a safety issue.
Subsequent investigation and analysis led the FAA and Boeing to determine in May that "the failure rate of both switches is much higher than initially estimated, and therefore does pose a safety issue."

My question, who builds the switches? Are they in other airplanes? Spacecraft?
ID: 2080172 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 17341
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 2080173 - Posted: 16 Jul 2021, 14:50:07 UTC - in response to Message 2080172.  

My question, who builds the switches? Are they in other airplanes? Spacecraft?

No idea, but have they been 'grandfathered in' and therefore could be late 50's or early 60's design and that there are better more reliable alternatives available.
ID: 2080173 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 29065
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 2080204 - Posted: 16 Jul 2021, 20:36:55 UTC - in response to Message 2080173.  

My question, who builds the switches? Are they in other airplanes? Spacecraft?

No idea, but have they been 'grandfathered in' and therefore could be late 50's or early 60's design and that there are better more reliable alternatives available.

In the world of certified aircraft, once a design is blessed, er certified, no one dares make a big improvement because obtaining a new certification will bankrupt the investors.

There have been a number of biz jets that have obviously depressurized and flown until they run out of fuel over the years. A shared bad part or part design?
ID: 2080204 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 17341
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 2080220 - Posted: 17 Jul 2021, 0:57:06 UTC - in response to Message 2080204.  
Last modified: 17 Jul 2021, 1:03:17 UTC

My question, who builds the switches? Are they in other airplanes? Spacecraft?

No idea, but have they been 'grandfathered in' and therefore could be late 50's or early 60's design and that there are better more reliable alternatives available.

In the world of certified aircraft, once a design is blessed, er certified, no one dares make a big improvement because obtaining a new certification will bankrupt the investors.

There have been a number of biz jets that have obviously depressurized and flown until they run out of fuel over the years. A shared bad part or part design?

But no doubt they would have no problem with introducing newer designs if it came with a significant weight and size reduction in the item.
ID: 2080220 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 29065
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 2080222 - Posted: 17 Jul 2021, 1:32:05 UTC - in response to Message 2080220.  

My question, who builds the switches? Are they in other airplanes? Spacecraft?

No idea, but have they been 'grandfathered in' and therefore could be late 50's or early 60's design and that there are better more reliable alternatives available.

In the world of certified aircraft, once a design is blessed, er certified, no one dares make a big improvement because obtaining a new certification will bankrupt the investors.

There have been a number of biz jets that have obviously depressurized and flown until they run out of fuel over the years. A shared bad part or part design?

But no doubt they would have no problem with introducing newer designs if it came with a significant weight and size reduction in the item.

Significant? Guessing, but even leaving it off entirely isn't going to be significant. A 50's design would be what, the sealed cans of a barometer and a micro-switch?
https://www.starpath.com/fischer/pics/new_pics/Fischer_Aneroid_Barometer_Movement_Dial_Large.jpg
ID: 2080222 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 15762
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2081501 - Posted: 3 Aug 2021, 15:23:09 UTC

Boeing's latest attempt:

Boeing delays rerun of Starliner space capsule test
wrote:
... The CST-100 Starliner will launch from Florida at some point to showcase how it can ferry crews to and from the International Space Station (ISS).

It will be the second test flight, and conducted with no people aboard. The previous demonstration in 2019 encountered software problems that very nearly caused the loss of the capsule...

... Controllers had been targeting Tuesday for the launch, but scrubbed the countdown with two-and-a-half hours left on the clock.

The reason was not immediately clear. However, Tory Bruno, the CEO of United Launch Alliance, which operates the Atlas rocket, tweeted that his team would recycle for an attempt on Wednesday...

... while SpaceX is now two crewed operational flights into this privatised era, Boeing has yet to run a single crewed mission in a Starliner. And that's because Boeing's first unpiloted "Orbital Flight Test" in December 2019 went seriously awry...

... Boeing's director of Starliner mission operations, said the company had run full-mission duration simulations of the new software on the capsule. The new code, he added, had implemented every correction recommended by the review. "We fixed every one, we addressed every one. We want this next flight to be as clean as it could possibly be," he told reporters...



Here's hoping that Boeing honestly truly have cleaned up their leopard spots...

Fly safe folks!
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2081501 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 15762
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2082126 - Posted: 12 Aug 2021, 19:49:03 UTC - in response to Message 2081501.  
Last modified: 12 Aug 2021, 19:50:17 UTC

A few days on and not looking good...


Hilarious... If it wasn't all very real.

See for yourself:


(Try playing this at x1.5 speed unless you wish to savor the experience!)
Boeing Blows it AGAIN!! Is this thing safe? What we should have done differently!
wrote:
... we need an alternative to Starliner... no matter the cost.


Boeing Starliner launch delayed again, and insane SpaceX Starship progress!
wrote:
2 The Future



I would imagine that the thrusters valves, ALL of 'em, are ALL 'Safety Critical'... Or why have them?...

How does Boeing get away with such dangerous sloppy expensive silliness?

Oh... And this is supposed to be 'Astronaut Rated'?!



Fly safe folks!!
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2082126 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 15762
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2082154 - Posted: 12 Aug 2021, 23:42:54 UTC - in response to Message 2082126.  
Last modified: 12 Aug 2021, 23:44:14 UTC

A few days on and not looking good...

[...]

I would imagine that the thrusters valves, ALL of 'em, are ALL 'Safety Critical'... Or why have them?...


This is looking to be worryingly 'curious'...

Boeing's Starliner sees August launch slipping away after more valve trouble
wrote:
...

Teams continue to work on Starliner's service module propulsion system inside of ULALaunch's Vertical Integration Facility. BoeingSpace has been able to command seven of 13 valves open that previously were in the closed position... August 9, 2021


Seven of 13 valves that stayed shut when they should have opened during a pre-launch test have now been opened by engineers, but they have yet to track down what is keeping them closed [or what is not opening them...]. Boeing has been able to rule out external physical or chemical damage or corrosion to the affected valves.

NASA said that the Starliner will remain in the VIF [Vertical Integration Facility] until engineers have been able to isolate the root problem, correct the issue, and verify "repeatable system performance."...

Ooooer! That last sentence sounds like a "Bit of a telling off"!

So... How has that come to pass and be so 'unexpected' so late before launch?...



Fly safe folks!!
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2082154 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 15762
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2082155 - Posted: 12 Aug 2021, 23:55:27 UTC
Last modified: 13 Aug 2021, 14:36:12 UTC

Moving back to a lower altitude for an update of recent Boeing safety news:


Boeing 787 Dreamliner: A Timeline of Recent Production Problems
wrote:
... A new defect on Boeing’s Dreamliner aircraft surfaced in July, the latest in a series of issues that arose late last summer. Deliveries of the popular plane are now halted, pressuring Boeing’s profits. WSJ’s Andrew Tangel explains how Boeing got here...



FAA mandates inspections of Boeing 737 switches that could pose safety risk
wrote:
Oxygen levels could become "dangerously low" if switches fail over 10,000 feet...

... But the crew and maintenance personnel are not alerted of switch failures...

... "A latent failure of both pressure switches could result in the loss of cabin altitude warning, which could ... result in incapacitation of the flight crew due to hypoxia (a lack of oxygen in the body), and consequent loss of control of the airplane,"...

... The FAA order affects around 2,500 planes in the U.S. including the Boeing 737 Max and 737 NextGen...

... The concern was prompted by a test in September when an operator reported that both switches had failed on three different models of the Boeing 737...



Boeing 737 MAX planes face cargo rules over fire-related concerns
wrote:
... The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said all Boeing MAX planes and some other 737 models were affected by the precautionary measure...

... the aircraft may have a failed electronic flow control in the air conditioning packs that vent air into the hold...

... The airworthiness directive impacts 663 airplanes registered in the United States and approximately 2,204 worldwide, the FAA said.

It potentially means that operators would be unable ... to take passenger baggage in the hold at the height of the holiday season...



The pressure switch problem in particular is worrying for that having been something that isn't normally checked each flight and there is no other warning of failure and it took an actual airline themselves to discover the safety critical problem!...

Fly safe?!
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2082155 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Previous · 1 . . . 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 . . . 17 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Boeing: Profits 1st, Safety 2nd? (Part 3)


 
©2022 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.